Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the process liquid" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ultrasound generators” in line 7. It is unclear whether or not this is in reference to the “at least one ultrasound generator” of lines 3-4. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation of line 7 refers to the corresponding limitation of lines 3-4.
The term “essentially rectangular” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially rectangular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what shape is being claimed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the narrow sides" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a flat side” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not this is in reference to the “at least two flat sides” of claim 2, on which claim 4 depends. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation of claim 4 refers to the corresponding limitation of claim 2.
The term “elastic seals” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elastic seals” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of hardness/elasticity of material is being claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the feed conduct (26) and the filter (28) are kept movable back and forth to the extraction end (14) in order to unblock or to close said extraction end”. It is unclear what structure is being claimed that allows the feed conduct and the filter to be movable and unblock or close the extraction end.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “detection means… to detect the presence or the arrival of a granular grain in respectively at the extraction end (14) or in respectively at the feeding end (13)”. It is unclear what structure is being claimed. Paragraph [0036] of the instant specification provides that: “The detection means can have an optical effect or operate by ultrasound.” However, it is unclear what structure provides said optical effect or operates by ultrasound to provide a means for detection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (JP2009262036A) in view of Kittrick et al. (US20100230329).
Regarding claims 1-3, Shirai et al. teaches a device capable of carrying out a method for washing/cleaning granular material from slag as well as bottom/boiler ash from a thermal waste treatment as well as mineral residue and recycling material (see abstract, page 1 of the translation), comprising a cleaning channel 5 and at least one ultrasound generator 6 capable of subjecting the cleaning channel 5 and process liquid therein and granular material therein to ultra sound (see page 3 of the translation, figures 1-2), wherein the cleaning channel 5 extends upright or vertically in its longitudinal extension from an upper feeding end (see end of 5 adjacent to 23, as shown in figure 1) to a lower extraction end (see end of 5 adjacent to 24, as shown in figure 1), that the ultrasound generator is located along the longitudinal extension of the cleaning channel 5. Shirai et al. does not explicitly teach a plurality of ultrasound generators. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the number of ultrasound generators may be increased so as to increase the ultrasonic cleaning capacity of the system. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Shirai et al. does not teach a plurality of ultrasound generators or that the extraction end is connected to a feed conduct for process liquid. Kittrick et al. teaches an ultrasonic cleaning system (see abstract) whereby the cross section of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 is rectangular in shape (see paragraph [0025]) and has at least two flat sides extending along the flow direction and parallel to each other and that a plurality of ultrasound generators 20 are located along the flat sides (see paragraph [0025], figures 2, 4, 6) (reads on claim 2), such that the sound emission surfaces of the ultrasound generators 20 constitute flat sides of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 (see paragraph [0025], figures 2, 4, 6) (reads on claim 3); and that the extraction end (see bottom end of 14/16/18 attached to 33, as shown in figure 1) is connected to a feed conduct 33 for process liquid, such that the delivered process liquid flows from the bottom to the top of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 and that the feeding end (see top end of 14/16/18 attached to 34, as shown in figure 1) is connected to an overflow 34 in order to extract process liquid escaping from the cleaning channel 14/16/18; thereby allowing for an improved cleaning effect (see figure 1, paragraph [0023]). Since both Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. both teach ultrasonic cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a plurality of ultrasound generators, a feed conduct and overflow may be included in the system by Shirai et al. so as to allow for an improved cleaning effect, as shown to be known and conventional by Kittrick et al.
Regarding claim 4, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 2. Shirai et al. also teaches in page 3 of the translation and figure 2 a flat side 23/24 is movable with the ultrasound generator 6 back and forth towards the opposite flat side 23/24 (e.g. during vibration due to operation of the ultrasound generator) and that the narrow sides (see vertical wall portions of 5 that are connected to 23 and 24, as shown in figure 2) of the cleaning channel 5 are connected upright to the flat sides 23, 24 and are constituted by elastic seals (the side walls are capable of vibrating when the ultrasound generator 6 is operated).
Regarding claim 5, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 2. Shirai et al. does not teach a filter provided upstream the feed conduct. Kittrick et al. teaches a filter (see filtration unit) provided upstream the feed conduct 33 for the process liquid, allowing for the removal of particulates (reads on a mesh width smaller than the smallest diameter of the granular particles) and recycling and reuse of the process liquid (see paragraphs [0023] and figure 2). Since both Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. teach ultrasonic cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a filter may be provided upstream of the feed conduct in the modified system by Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. so as to allow for the removal of particulates recycling and reuse of process liquid, as shown to be known and conventional by Kittrick et al.
Regarding claim 7, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirai et al. also teaches that the cleaning channel 5 is capable of being locked upstream of the extraction end by means of a valve (see e.g. closure through sealable dampers 23).
Regarding claim 8, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirai et al. does not teach an inspection glass and/or a detection means. Kittrick et al. teaches a detection means 56 provided in the sinking direction downstream the cleaning channel 14/16/18 and upstream the extraction end and in the sinking direction upstream the cleaning channel 14/16/18 and downstream the feeding end (see paragraph [0031], positioning of multiple detectors 56 longitudinally spaced apart along the length of the cleaning channel 14/16/18) capable of detecting the presence or the arrival of a granular grain (see paragraph [0031], see e.g. the detection of increasing turbidity and progressively dirtier water, which reads on detection of the presence of granular grain) in respectively at the extraction end or in respectively at the feeding end (see paragraph [0031], figures 3, 5). Since both Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. teach ultrasound cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that detection means may be disposed between the cleaning channel and extraction and feeding ends so as to allow for the ability to detect the presence of dirt, as shown to be known and conventional by Kittrick et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Shirai et al. (JP2009262036A). Shirai et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711